Should we Deny Communion to Visitors?
In Clarion, Dr. Bill de Jong recently touched a sensitive spot in the Canadian Reformed psyche. In his collegial discussion with Dr. Jason van Vliet, he mentions the Apostle Paul “upbraiding Peter in Antioch to his face” for withdrawing from table-fellowship with Gentile believers. Dr. De Jong points out that Paul warns Peter that this strikes at the very heart of the Gospel: ultimately, it is a denial of the doctrine of justification by faith (Gal 2:16.)[i] Dr. van Vliet demurs. He contends that when a consistory denies table-fellowship to non-Reformed Christians, they are “not adding, in any way, the requirements of ‘works of the law’ to faith. Instead, it is simply and rightly ascertaining that the content of someone’s faith is in line with God’s revealed Word.”[ii] For many years, in our ecumenical conversations, how visitors are welcomed to communion has dominated much of our dialogue. The position Dr. De Jong has articulated is relatively unusual among us. However, Dr. Van Vliet’s position only restates the status quo. This is a topic worth looking into more deeply. What is happening in Galatians 2? What is the apostle Paul speaking of? And why? Paul wrote to the Galatians Christians because some of them were teaching that being a Christian was all about what you do. Among them were those who insisted that the Jewish customs needed to be followed. They were teaching that circumcision was still necessary for Christians (2:4-5). Even Christians who were not of Jewish descent were required to be circumcised. They insisted that the Christian church needed to continue with the ancient food laws and cleansing rituals (2:12). But Paul insists that this is not the case. The Apostle teaches us that the only way to be right with God is by faith in Jesus Christ. In Galatians 2, he illustrates this from an event in the life of the apostles. He underlines his point that a man is justified by faith and not by rules that he follows, by recounting how he had rebuked Peter.
From Acts 10 we know that Peter had come to learn that the gospel was not just for Jews but also for the Gentiles. The good news was also for all the other nations and peoples of the world. For the Jews, there were two kinds of people: themselves—God’s covenant people—and the rest of the nations. And the Jews segregated themselves from Gentiles. We need to turn the account of Peter’s vision while on the rooftop patio of his friend’s house. While he was in a trance, he saw a large sheet with all sorts of unclean animals lowered from heaven, and a voice said, “Kill and eat.” But Peter balked. Three times, the sheet came down. Three times, he was told, “Eat of these unclean creatures.” But he said, “I’ve never eaten anything unclean.”
As he pondered this vision and wondered at its meaning, messengers came looking for him from afar. They had been sent to find Peter and bring him to their master, Cornelius, who was a Gentile. Because of the vision and the invitation to come to Cornelius, it became clear to Peter that though he was to be separated from the Gentiles in the past, this was no longer valid. With the coming of the Christ, the message of hope in the Gospel was for all. Food laws were obsolete, and segregation was no longer necessary. More than that, segregation was now forbidden!
Peter then said to those who sent for him, “You know that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean” (Acts 10:26). He went with them, and stayed with the Gentiles for a time, teaching them of Jesus Christ, while living among them and eating with them. He shared table-fellowship with them.
When the leaders of the church in Jerusalem heard this, they wondered what Peter was up to. How could he be sharing a table, a meal, with Gentiles? They were unclean, were they not? In response to their concerns, Peter went up to Jerusalem to tell the church leaders there what he was doing and why. He told them of his vision and the messengers from afar and how he now understood that food laws were no longer valid and that Gentiles were not unclean. When they heard Peter’s explanation, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, even to Gentiles, God has granted repentance that leads to life” (11:1-18). Gentiles can be right with God, too!
In Galatians 2, Paul recalls what happened later. Paul was back in Antioch, an important city for the early church. This is the church that had sent Paul and Barnabas out to preach the good news of Jesus to the Gentiles. Here, Christians from both Jewish and Gentile families came together as one. It was the first multinational, inter-racial church. It was some years later, and Paul had heard something about Peter. It seems that Peter and others were no longer sharing table-fellowship with Gentile Christians, even though God had made clear to Peter in that vision that the OT food laws were no longer necessary, and from this Peter had also understood that he no longer needed to avoid association with Gentiles. He should not deem anyone impure or unclean. There was no need for Gentile Christians to “do certain things” to be permitted to enjoy table-fellowship with Jewish Christians.
But somehow, pressure had been put on Peter to change back to former practices. The free and easy fellowship the church enjoyed in Antioch and other places had upset some who claimed to be sent by the leaders the church in Jerusalem. James and the others there were trying to reach their Jewish brethren with the gospel, and it seems that Peter’s (and the church at Antioch’s) new ideas were considered scandalous. This was, it would seem, to be a detriment to the church in Judea (Antioch was far to the north in Syria.) We are not sure where Peter was preaching, but some came from James in Jerusalem to Peter and told him to cease and desist this fraternizing with the Gentiles.
Of course, we can be pretty sure that Peter was focused entirely on the cause of Jesus and on the advance of the church. If his table fellowship with Gentiles was a cause for offence, he might have reasoned that slipping back to previous ways wouldn’t hurt too much. Paul notes that Peter’s return to Jewish ways even caused Barnabas, Paul’s missionary partner to the Gentiles, to do the same. Peter, Barnabas, and the Judean church were no longer sharing table fellowship with Gentile Christians. In the culture of the day, this would have been considered normal. The Jews had been scattered throughout the world, and in every place, they would have refrained from table-fellowship with non-Jews.
We must remember, however, that in the early church, it was at fellowship meals that the Lord’s Supper was celebrated. During a communal meal, bread would be broken, and wine shared in remembrance of the Lord Jesus Christ (Cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34). But now Peter and Barnabas had segregated the church: Jews at this table, Gentiles at that.
They were not denying that the Gentiles in the church were Christian, but to enjoy table fellowship with Jewish Christians, the Gentile Christians needed to follow some more rules. Peter likely said something like, “We are not judging you, but we can’t share communion at the same table with you because you don’t follow our rules! Of course, you’re a Christian; we just can’t express our unity in Christ with you at the Lord’s Supper.” When the Apostle Paul heard this, he was indignant. God had shown that none were to be considered unclean. The gospel message is the same for all. As the Jerusalem leaders said earlier, “So then, even to Gentiles, God has granted repentance that leads to life!” (Acts 11)
Paul recounts to the Galatians how when Peter came to Antioch, Paul took the opportunity to rebuke him for his hypocrisy. (“Cephas,” he calls him. That was Peter’s Jewish name. “Cephas” is “Peter” in Aramaic. Peter the Rock: the solid guy. Paul uses the Jewish rendering of Peter’s name, not the Gentile one, for this hypocrite.) He rebuked Jewish “Cephas” for refusing table fellowship to Gentile Christians and for refusing to share communion with other Christians based on rules. It seems that Peter was no longer following the Jewish customs concerning food, and yet he segregated himself from Gentiles who were not circumcised. “You who don’t follow the rules anymore, are insisting others do!” Peter and the others had misjudged the matter. They were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel (2:14). I know of several CanR "snowbirds" who spend Canadian winters in the southern states and attend churches that welcome them to communion with an invitation and warning, but when at home again in Canada, defend our rules. Is this not similar to Peter, who didn't follow the rules , and yet insisted others did.
Paul insists that adding just one rule beyond the gospel to bar others from table-fellowship undermines the gospel of free grace. It strikes at the very heart of the gospel. Denying table-fellowship based on rules undermines the truth of God that declares “that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ” (2:15). If we say to another professing Christ-following, Bible-believing Christian, “You can’t have table-fellowship with us because of one of our rules,” we are in danger of destroying the gospel. It strikes at the unity of the church by imposing segregation. It binds Christians to the law, which Peter himself earlier had said was a burdensome yoke (Acts 15). And it sets aside God’s grace (2:21).
How does that square with our own practice? In our history, we have consistently denied table fellowship to all kinds of Christ-followers from Bible-believing churches who come as visitors to our worship services. We have taught generations of our own members to deny themselves table fellowship, even when they visited other churches in our own federation, unless they had a travel attestation. I contend that that undermines the doctrines of grace, of the unity and ecumenicity of the church, and introduces a new legalism.
Some will argue that we are to “keep the table holy” but no such scriptural mandate exists. The holy supper is holy! Even as the Ark of the Covenant was holy. When David had it transported in ways not mandated (on a cart) and someone reached out to steady it, the Ark was not defiled: the offender was struck dead by God (2 Sam 6)! The Belgic Confession even notes that Judas communed at the Last Supper, and the Lord knew what was in his heart. Nowhere in the confessions of the church will you find a mandate for elders to “keep the table holy.” As well, there is no mandate in the Church Order for elders “to guard” or “to fence” the table, nor to “keep” it holy. Nor is there a mandate for that in the ordination forms or even in the Form for the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper itself.
For many years, some have interpreted Article 61 of the Church Order to mandate the elders to require a “travel attestation” from visitors to permit their participation in communion. However, this article does not speak of visitors but of the requirement that baptized members and new members make a public profession of faith before becoming church communicant members. It is by their public profession that they are admitted to the holy supper (See Form for the Public Profession of Faith). Members are not “re-admitted” at every communion service but rather only once at their public profession of faith. Afterward, both members and visitors are welcomed to the table.
Moreover, several of our churches will welcome visitors through an interview or some other sort of confirmation, which shows that this article does not require a travel attestation. There is no regulation in the CO that demands an attest prior to welcoming a visitor to communion. I am thankful that our churches have never adopted nor approved a standard rule for welcoming visitors to communion.
[i] “The Invitation to the Table.”
Clarion. Vol 68.5. March 8, 2019. (pg 131.)
[ii] “Response to Dr. Bill de Jong.”
Clarion. Vol 68.5. March 8, 2019 (pg. 133). Italics in original
